Gabor,
That is fine then, this was the main reservation that I had about "anticipated usage". If the regulators are happy with it, then go for it. ;-) Gerald _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 09 May, 2012 14:53 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [paws] Charter update progress Gerald, Peter indicated in his email that regulators (ie Ofcom) may not have a problem with anticipated usage. I agree that the interference calculations need the data about the actual usage, but this does not seem to be a requirement of any regulator for the time being. - Gabor From: ext Gerald Chouinard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:18 AM To: 'Peter Stanforth'; Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [paws] Charter update progress Pete, Gabor, You may want to look at this from the regulators' point of view. For them, the only thing that counts is that the spectrum is used or not. "Anticipated", "intended" or "expected" usage is not something that they are use to deal with. It is being used or not so that the interference calculations can be done properly. The "real-time" aspect is another matter that has to do with the time granularity of the spectrum usage but at any moment, the spectrum is used or not. The intention or expectation of using the spectrum is an aspect that is orthogonal to whether the spectrum is actually used or not. My two cents . Gerald _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] <mailto:%5bmailto:[email protected]%5d> On Behalf Of Peter Stanforth Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2012 18:28 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress I am sorry if my last message created/added to the confusion. I was not opposed to the wording we had, that Pete quoted. I know that I was one of several people that asked Ofcom directly what they were looking for, I did not get any indication that our proposed language using "anticipated", "intended" or "expected" was a problem. Peter S. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress Peter, The question is what features do we want the protocol to have. If we want to report 'intended spectrum usage', that can possibly be done within the same transaction as the query/response for channel availability. If instead we want to report the 'actual spectrum usage', that means that the protocol will need to have the capability to allow the clients autonomously contacting the DB and reporting any change in spectrum usage at any time during their operation. The IESG may want to know which features do we want to design. Some folks suggested anticipated/intended usage, to hint that we do not need the protocol to send reports dynamically. Since you oppose that wording, I guess you want 'actual usage' then, as that is the only alternative I could see. Can you confirm if that's what you want. We can ask if people on the list agree with this. If yes, then bingo. If not, then we won't have a charter update until we agree on this text, and consequently we can't include the Ofcom reporting requirements to the Use Cases and Requirements draft. - Gabor From: ext Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 2:15 PM To: Pete Resnick; [email protected] Cc: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress Pete, I share your sentiments. A feedback loop is very desirable but I don't think that the implication is well understood. So the charter should avoid defining what or how it would be provided until we have had chance to get some input and contributions on the issue. Peter S. From: Pete Resnick <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Stanforth <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress Andy, As I have explained, just saying "report spectrum usage" sounds like it may involve a dynamically updating process such that any change in spectrum usage, even if it is post-query, needs to be reported to the database. That is a *much* larger change than was proposed, which is why we had it as "anticipated spectrum usage". I also thought that "intended spectrum usage" was a reasonable compromise. But simply "spectrum usage" is problematic, and there are several folks who do not agree with this change as I have read the list. If you wish to suggest another phrase, that's fine. But I can't go to the IESG with your text. pr On 5/3/12 7:30 AM, [email protected] wrote: Gabor may have a combined view of the proposals - I still support my initial proposal of April 15th, which was to change the new bullet point 5 from "Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable granularity" to "Report spectrum usage to the white space database at a suitable granularity". Regards Andy From: Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 May 2012 13:24 To: Sago,AJ,Andy,COD R; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress What is the proposal? From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [paws] Charter update progress Gabor There has been no reflector discussion since 24th April UK time. Can we now submit the charter proposal to the IESG, or has that already happened? Thanks Andy -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
